Hi EQF. Your statements about weather forecasting are true. Weather forecasters acknowledge that weather forecasting in general is only about 70% accurate. However when they forecast a hurricane to impact a area on the east coast of the US they don't say a hurricane will impact the east coast they will give the location of the impact, the date and how strong the hurricane will be. In this they are very accurate. People in general can see for themselves where and when that hurricane will impact the East Coast as they have a fairly good understanding of how weather works. They can see it happening with their own eyes. If an evacuation is required most will evacuate the area.

The forecast for a major earthquake has to be accurate for it to be useful. To say a major quake is going to strike California isn't good enough. To say a major quake is going to strike California in the next week or so isn't good enough. As an example lets say a major quake is going to strike the Bay Area next week. Where and when in the Bay Area is it going to strike? If the intention is to evacuate the area when do you start the evacuation and where are the people going to evacuate to? How long are you going to keep them from coming back into the area? How large of an area are you going to evacuate? Lets say that most of the people that evacuate the area go to San Jose and the quake centers in the San Jose area. That is considered to be a part of the Bay Area, but the damage there will be far greater then it would be in the San Francisco Bay Area. What has been accomplished by evacuating the people to an area that the major quake centers in?

There are so many variables to consider and being wrong in any of them could do as much if not harm then the quake itself depending on where is strikes, or doesn't strike. The worse thing that could happen is that the quake doesn't occur at all. The next time a forecast is issued you can bet that where will be a lot of people who are going to ignore it.

As things stand right now the immediate Bay Area has the best chance of forecasting a major quake with a fairly good degree of accuracy. There are the mini PBOs and the other crustal deformation sites, but even this leaves a lot to be desired as there are still some faults not covered that could cause a major quake.

This is also my personal opinion. Take Care…Don in creepy town